Archive for category: NSA

WinX, or windows 10, is nothing more than a cloud based operation system that will and does record all of your keystrokes and monitors everything you do on your computer. It is free just like facebook. Why? To collect big data. Ask yourself, why would microsoft give this away rather than charge you $200? Quite simply, the data it collects about you is worth far more. These folks no longer make their money from selling windows. They currently make their money from cloud based operations, which includes, gathering every bit of data and information about you that they possible can. JUST SAY NO! This tool will eliminate microsoft’s malware/spyware from your system. Download GWS Control Panel today and use it!

A Joint Statement from Access Now, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation Apple is engaged in a high-profile battle against a court order demanding it write, sign, and deploy custom computer code to defeat the security on an iPhone. As civil liberties groups committed to the freedom of thought that underpins a democratic society, this fight is our fight. It is the fight of every person who believes in a future where technology does not come at the cost of privacy or individual security and where there are reasonable safeguards on government power. This is a fight that implicates all technology users. There are already bad actors trying to defeat the security on iPhones, and an FBI-ordered backdoor will only assist their efforts. Once this has been created, malicious hackers will surely increase their attacks on the FBI and Apple, hoping to ferret out clues to this entrance route and they may well succeed. The precedent created by this case is disturbing: it creates a new pathway for the government to conscript private companies into building surveillance tools. If Apple can be compelled to create a master key to unlock this iPhone, then little will prevent the government from ordering any company to turn its products into tools of surveillance, compromising the safety, privacy, and security of everyone. Our organizations are committed to defending the security and human rights of everyday people whose data will be implicated by this shortsighted policy. We call on the Obama Administration to heed the advice of neutral security experts, engineers, and even his own advisors who have affirmed the dangers inherent in the order issued to Apple. We urge them to reject the calls of those who seek to undermine our security, whether through backdoors into our software, master keys to unlock our digital data, or pressure on companies to downgrade our security. Over 100,000 people have called for President Obama to stand up for security in our devices through savecrypto.org. Its time for the President to be accountable to them, and to all of us. We ask our supporters to join this call by sharing this graphic with President Obama and the rest of the world.

Comrade feinstein, you may know her as an alleged senator from california, has recently submitted a bill/amendment/whatever called the Burr-Feinstein encryption bill. WTF? I sent her a very nasty email and she deserves it. But, as usual, someone else has spent the time and effort to really clarify what a fricken yuge mistake this bill is and why our comrade from ca doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about. To hammer the nail of my point in, tech companies are working to INCREASE the use of encryption. And to confirm, even the most hawkish senators are having second thoughts, “Its just not so simple”, Graham responded. “I thought it was that simple”.

The government’s use of a 230 year old law, the All Writs Act of 1789 to try to force Apple to provide the government with a backdoor to all iPhones has caused a huge stir today. And well it should. What is crystal clear is that americans get all bent out of shape if anyone even suggests common sense gun laws while these same americans could care less when it is suggested that we should accept that our government should control our privacy. Both issues are addressed in our Constitution. The fools who could give a damn about privacy rely on their leader’s claims that they could prevent acts of terror if we had zero privacy. How do I know these folks are fools? Easy, they insult us by making claims that the Paris terror event WOULD have been prevented had it not been for encryption. No one can prove this, it is a known unknown. It is clear that those that proceed on false assertions are fools. So please, all of you politicians that are banging the drum for government backdoors to encryption, just shut the fuck up. But what can you expect from a country filled with the pride that dubya kept us safe, except on 9/11.

There have been a number of political candidates, indeed even our current administration, that claim that encryption is something that only our trusted government should be allowed to possess. Recently our current potus actually sent a delegation to silicon valley to shill for features that would allow our government unfettered access to all of our private data by designing in “backdoors” and other means of invading our privacy all in violation of our 4th amendment. Truth be told, I believe these folks were rebuffed even though the hill claims otherwise. Yes, that bastion of pure progressiveness, the hill, wants our government to pursue policies contrary to our consititution, to continue to bury our 4th amendment rights and protections beneath a pile of false claims and questionable secret laws and secret courts. No, just say no. We need more apples like Tim Cook. Taking clues from the nsa’s microsoft’s WinX as a OS in the cloud in which they claim unfettered access to all your data and keystrokes as a condition of use for their os, it may be time to toss microsoft and their big data folly aside and go with a company whose CEO values our privacy and constitutional rights. We need more CEOs writing letters like this one: February 16, 2016 A Message to Our Customers The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake. The Need for Encryption Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going. All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data. Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us. For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers personal data because we believe its the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business. The San Bernardino Case We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the governments efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists. When the FBI has requested data thats in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal. We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone. Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software which does not exist today would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someones physical possession. The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control. The Threat to Data Security Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case. In todays digital world, the key to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge. The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But thats simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable. The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers including tens of millions of American citizens from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe. We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that […]

Today the administration sent some of its highest ranking officials to silicon valley to try to enlist some of our tech giants into furthering the war on terror. These folks are not yet happy in that they have destroyed our 4th amendment with all the useless god damn warrantless monitoring of our Internet, now they are going after our 1st amendment, cause ya know that darn ol’ Constitution is not a suicide pact. These folks want to turn our tech industry into a bunch of snitches and snoops. And to top it off they are expected to push for the government’s sole right to encryption. This is pure bs on so many levels it is hard to count. It seems best summarized by Leah in her first encounter with Darth Vader, when she exclaims that the harder Vader tries to clamp down on the various star systems, the more they will slip through his fingers. Our government does not get it. A bigger haystack has not stopped a single incident of so called terror. Censoring social media will follow close behind in it’s utter failure to change anything, except… You know those freedoms ol dubya claimed our enemies hated, well our government is fixated on destroying all of them. Soon they seem to reason, there will not be any reason for anyone to hate america. Except of course, Americans. God damn it mr. potus. When are you going to get it through that head of yours that you are being badly served. For once stop with the pouring more money down the rat trap known as our industrial military complex and start with policies that will actually make a difference to America. Chasing a cause of death of Americans that ranks at the bottom of the list is hardly good stewardship of our tax dollars and intellect. You would save more lives and money if you directed OSHA to design and require building of ladders that no one could fall off of. Or perhaps automobiles that could not crash. Enough of this neocon nonsense that serves one purpose, to generate hatred from the rest of the world all the while making a few ceo’s more than a pocket full of change. And oh yeah mr. potus, don’t expect me to tune in to your upcoming address. I am damn tired of being governed by right wing psychopaths masquerading as democrats.

Sorry potus, I have become immune to your voice. I also shed a few tears the minute the polls closed on the west coast and guaranteed your first victory. But I will not apologize for deliberately tuning you out today. Sure I was disappointed when you refused to investigate war crimes. And don’t get me started on too big to fail. And you know what, obamacare ain’t really that great, but at least I can get insurance to cover medical disasters. Then you started in with all the lies about how secret laws debated in secret courts was and is a legal justification for recording ALL Internet traffic all the while claiming that no one is really listening and making a big deal about the meta data from the phone companies when we all know that is just the tip of the ice berg. Your prosecution of Drake was inexcusable as is your drone hit list. And you top it off with pushing that damn TPP crap on us? No, that is not what you promised nor is that what I voted for. So while you spent your time on the bully pulpit today shedding some tears, there was another man giving the speech you should have given over 7 years ago. Not only did the bern declare war on the so called 1%, he came out with knives sharpened for the clintons, mocking hillary’s claim that she told wall street “to cut it out“, dismissing her prescriptions for solving the issues, and laying firmly at Bill’s feat his complicity in creating the near depression of 2008. Too bad potus. Had you had the guts 7 years ago and called out many of these issues we would be well on our way out of this mess rather than be facing, as we are in 2016, yet another wall street induced recession.

Not one of these idiots discussing national security and our government’s activities, including the moderators, whereby the NSA records ALL phone conversations and Internet activities has ANY idea what they are talking about. I get damned tired of hearing these fools claim otherwise. Search Warrants? The NSA doesn’t need any sticken badges. What a bunch of liars and fools.

Of all the asinine stuff I’ve heard, the latest crap coming from some law man in Texas really tops the cake. He claims that everyone should get armed to protect ourselves. Seriously? He then goes on, in that obnoxious texas drawl, to claim that our potus needs to learn the 2nd amendment because if he continues to insist that everyone be disarmed, he will have a revolution on his hands. Asinine? On multiple fronts. Lets start at the beginning. The second amendment refers to having a well armed militia. Back then the country had no taxes and could not afford a military. So everyone was required to buy a musket just in case we were invaded. It was never intended to be and any sane reading of the amendment cannot justify that it declares the unmitigated right of all americans to own guns. And what is with these fools that they think a few handguns will allow them to hold off our military that is funded to the tune in excess of $600 billion/year. These fools watch too many batman movies. And what is all this crap about obama coming to take everyone’s guns away? He has been in office over 6 years. Exactly when is this national confiscation suppose to take place? Stupid in texas means that you can’t tell the difference between a NRA ad trying to sell guns and ammo and reality. Certainly there are legitimate and sane reasons to own a firearm. But claiming that owning a gun is a right without bounds or restrictions is probably the most asinine. And just one time I would like to hear these hero’s of freedom, who are so impotent that they need a gun to protect themselves from our government, so physically inept and insecure that they need to brandish a weapon to appease their own egos, express some concern over our government’s complete disregard for our 4th amendment. These folks don’t seem to give a damn about our fourth amendment. So no, obama is not coming for your guns, but he damn well is recording every conservation and internet transaction everyone in this country makes.

By Paul Waldman December 10 There’s a new poll out today from the Public Religion Research Institute showing that nearly half of Americans say they’re either very worried or somewhat worried that they or a member of their family will be a victim of terrorism. You might say that’s understandable, given how much terrorism has dominated the news recently. But the truth is, they’re wrong. On a national scale, terrorism isn’t a threat, its a nuisance. We’re having a collective freakout about it right now, and that freakout serves the interests of those who are encouraging it. But we need to take a step back and look at just how dangerous terrorism really is. Here’s a question we all ought to ask ourselves: When it comes to terrorism, what exactly are we afraid of? I know it seems self-evident terrorism is scary! but what exactly is it? If you try to articulate an answer, you quickly realize how infrequently we actually ask the question. The simplest answer, of course, is that were afraid that terrorists will kill people. Okay, so how many people? According to the New America Foundation, since 9/11 there have been 45 Americans killed in jihadist terrorist attacks, and 48 Americans killed in right-wing terrorist attacks. Lets put aside for the moment the fact that even though these two numbers are comparable, we don’t treat right-wing terrorism as something that requires any kind of policy response or even sustained attention. But you cant argue that jihadi terrorism is something to be concerned about and afraid of because of the damage its been doing. An average of about three people killed per year in a country of 320 million is next to nothing. So if its not because terrorists have managed to kill a lot of people in the last few years, are we petrified of terrorism because terrorists could kill lots of people in the near future? That’s possible. But how many could they kill? Another dozen, like in the San Bernardino shooting? A hundred? Five hundred? Since September 11 we’ve made it much harder to pull off a large-scale, spectacular attack. Terrorists aren’t going to be able to hijack airplanes and use them as missiles. Its possible that there could be repeats of the San Bernardino shootings, and that’s something to be concerned about. But we have mass shootings in America all the time. Why again exactly should we be more concerned about a repeat of San Bernardino than a repeat of Aurora, where nearly the same number of people (12) were killed? Both were terrible, and both could happen again. But only in the case of San Bernardino does the event cause large portions of the public and elected officials to contemplate sweeping policy change, even up to and including the idea of starting another full-scale Middle East war because we’re so frightened. (Anytime there’s a mass shooting, Democrats push for gun control measures; but Republicans only call for a major policy response when its terrorism.) There are some people who would argue that even if terrorists haven’t killed a lot of Americans lately, and even if its unlikely they’d be able to kill truly large numbers of Americans in the future, we still need to freak out about terrorism because a group like the Islamic State represents an existential threat to America. But if you get specific in the questions you ask, it becomes obvious that this idea is utterly deranged. Back in the Cold War, the Soviet Union presented a true existential threat to the United States. It had enough nuclear missiles pointed at us to kill every man, woman, and child in America (and on the rest of the planet to boot). The Islamic State has no such capability. Is the Islamic State going to launch an invasion of the United States, sweep through the nation from Manhattan all the way to Seattle, take control of the whole country, and force America to live under its brutal rule? Of course not. Is it going to launch a coup from inside our government and raise its flag over the White House? No. So what exactly is it we’re afraid the Islamic State will do to America? Right now I’m not talking about what it could do to Iraq or Syria, because that’s a very different question. What could it do to America? The absolute worst it could do is launch some successful attacks that might kill a dozen or even a hundred of us. And that would be awful. But about thirty Americans are murdered every day with guns, and a hundred die every day in car accidents. Eighty-three Americans die every day in falls, but we haven’t declared a War on Falling, and nobody tells pollsters that their biggest fear is that someone in their family will suffer a fatal fall. If you actually force yourself to think in specific terms about the substance of the threat the Islamic State poses to us, you have to admit that the actual threat is miniscule. So why are we having a national freakout about it now? The answer, I think, lies in the presidential campaign, particularly in the Republican primary. You have a bunch of news organizations following around a bunch of candidates who know that the way to gain the support of their base is to prey on that base’s fears and prejudices. Add in the fact that the front-runner is a demagogic bigot, and you quickly get into a cycle of hysteria: a terrorist attack happens, its extensively covered in the media, the candidates seize on it to propose ever more radical policy changes (Keep out refugees! Put troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria! Keep out all the Muslims!) all the while proclaiming that the threat from terrorism is horrifyingly large and growing larger. The media report on their statements, voters get more nervous, and the candidates respond by feeding the panic. Even outside their campaign coverage, the media give enormous attention to an event like San Bernardino, spending weeks analyzing not just the occurrence itself but who the perpetrators were, what motivated them, what they had for breakfast on the day of the attack, and everything else that can be uncovered. This coverage isnt problematic in and of itself, but its sheer volume serves […]